Can someone explain the near universal hatred for Duke?

[Van]

Even using ucant's timeframe of the last twenty years, Duke has six Final Four appearances to UConn's four. Make it twenty-five years and Duke has ten compared to UConn's four.

Along the way, Duke has the same number of titles (three) as UConn over the past twenty years, so he didn't even get that one right. And Duke has more than three overall, while UConn doesn't.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I said the last 20 seasons including this one. I am right. Learn to count moron.

[Van]

This season isn't even over yet, and that's the straw you're tryng to grasp? You really are desperate, aren't you? Hey, here's an idea: Let's choose another completely arbitrary chunk of time...say, twenty-six years, which is every bit as valid as your equally random twenty years. Over the past twenty-six seasons Duke has a 4-3 titles edge and an 11-4 Final Four appearances edge over UConn.

1992-2011 is twenty years. Those are the twenty most recently completed seasons. During that time Duke and UConn each won three titles but Duke has more Final Four appearances. Once this season has been completed Duke will still hold a 4-3 edge in titles over UConn as well as a 15-4 advantage in Final Four appearances.

Learn to count, indeed. Better yet, pull your head out of your ass. UConn, better than Duke?

Not even close.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

How can I possibly be splitting hairs when you're the asshat who responded to me and the parameters set forth in my post? If I include colors and pictures next time, will you be able to comprehend what you're reading and responding to?

I was right. And clearly, you can't count to 20. Don't go all moving goalposts on me. At the time I posted, neither team was still playing. Obviously (except to you apparently) neither team is adding to their trophy case this season.

To repeat. Verfuckingbatim: We have more championships (including this year of course) in the last 20 seasons than Duke. Tell me again how wrong I am, moron.

[Van]

1992-2011 is twenty seasons. During that time UConn and Duke have each won three titles, while Duke has six Final Four appearances to UConn's four.

1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

Those are the twenty most recently completed seasons. Count 'em. Twenty.

You're wrong. You're not just wrong about your arbitrary tangential point (which is strictly intended to split hairs in the most transparently self-serving way possible), you're assfuckingly wrong about your main point, which was that UConn is Duke...no, they're better than Duke!

Right. 4-3 and 15-4 says you're dirtclod stupid and nothing but a myopic homer. The point of this thread is that Duke is rightly considered a love-'em-or-hate-'em national institution along the lines of the Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers, etc.

No one in their right mind—and here's where you gleefully jump in—would even bother to try to put UConn and their meager four Final Four appearances in that class.

People have been wrong on this board before. By attempting to spin and shamelessly cling to an arbitrary definition of 'twenty years' to suit your rancid argument, you're elevating being wrong to an artform.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Look, Van. I feel bad for what you're going through. Obviously, your disease is affecting your ability to distinguish between facts and opinions. I have offered up plenty of opinions in this thread. I am shamelessly propping my team as is the wont of any real fan. However. What I posted was God damned fact. That you're debating me on this point is the dumbest exercise I've ever been involved in.

Of course, the facts I present are geared towards my argument. That's what debate is all about. Is this really news to you? But to tell me that my facts "aren't real" is beyond stupid. Unlike whether or not UConn is better than Duke (or is Duke, or Duke aspires to be like UConn, or whatever), this...

We have more championships (including this year of course) in the last 20 seasons than Duke

... is NOT up for debate. Continue to post some more of your own facts to back up your opinion. That's what this place is all about. But please, stop kicking your own ass about the fact I posted. I am truly embarrassed for you.

And feel free to recalibrate that slide rule, abacus, or whatever you're using these days to count to 20. It's broken. Which makes me wonder... why can't dude just use all of his toes and fingers? Don't they add up to 20?

[Van]

Twenty years as of right now makes you wrong. This season isn't even in the books yet, UConn won't be adding anything to their tally anyway, and who gives a rat fuck about twenty years as of March vs April?

Only you do, even knowing it's a pathetic, self-serving nothing of an argument. That's the liferaft to which you so furiously cling, and it's a joke.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Twenty years as of right now makes you wrong.

There's a problem with that, bro. That was NOT the context in which the post you referenced was presented... was it?

Speaking of which, here's another fact for you. Since 1999, UConn has been to the same number of Final Fours as Duke and has won more National Titles than any school in the country... including Duke. And yes, THE FACT that I just laid out helps bolster my argument. Not yours. Does it make it any less true? Of course not. Yes, Van. I am now clinging to another life raft. I am now using 1999 the starting point of my measuring stick. It's crazy, I know. I actually have the nerve to lay out facts in a manner that help my cause. Therefore, it can be said that since ** slaying the dragon UConn > Duke. Not to mention, the statement we are Duke was clearly about whether or not teams/fans now hate on us, just like we used to hate on Duke. That statement was preceeded by this one:

Now... we're at the top of the heap.

As in... we are now the hunted, not just the hunter. Sorry for putting the sentence you responded to back into its original context.... because, ya know, it helps me and not you. Feel free to fully recover from your next chemo/radiation session before replying. Vomit... then mash out your next horrible take. Not during. TIA.

** A term used previously in this thread explaining why I am not compelled to hate on Duke anymore.

[smackaholic]

UConn is royalty.....in women's hoops.

They are knocking at the door of royalty in men's.

My definition for royalty is kind of along Van's.

When defined in that way, Duke get's the edge over UConn, in that their record over 25 years is more impressive. And using the 20 year window, knowing someone has back to backs, just outside it, makes you look like an idiot.

Kentucky, UNC, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas all come to mind when royalty is defined in a historical context, although, Indiana better get off their ass and do something soon, or their "royalty" card will be pulled. Of course, all this discussion is about like arguing favorite color.

And in the end, that shit is for the history books. Today is what matters. UConn has 3 rings, pretty evenly spaced over 12 years. I don't believe anyone else can say that. They have 2 over 6 years. A few can say that, but, nobody can top it.

Bottom line is......

huskies.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Kentucky, UNC, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas all come to mind when royalty is defined in a historical context, although, Indiana UCLA better get off their ass and do something soon, or their "royalty" card will be pulled. Of course, all this discussion is about like arguing favorite color.

There you go. Indiana is right on the precipice of being "back." Sweet 16 this year, and lots of talent on the way. Crean gets scrubs to play really well, imagine what he'll do with Burger Boys. UCLA, on the other hand, is an absolute mess.

[Van]

Mgo, even so, UCLA has won a title more recently than Indiana while also appearing in three Final Fours more recently than the Hoosiers. In fact, just over the past six years—Alert! Alert! Random, self-serving timeframe! Alert!—UCLA has been to more Final Fours than...UCONN!

For that matter, since 2006 UCLA has been to more Final Fours than Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan St, Syracuse or Butler. I don't know feel like going through every team out there, but since 2006 UCLA may just have the most Final Four appearances of any program in the nation.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

No argument there. My response to smackaholic was is in regards to the present and future state of both programs. IU is clearly getting back on track while UCLA is spinning out of control, and may see a coaching change soon.

[Van]

Once Pauley Pavilion's renovation is complete, UCLA will likely see a resurgence. As relatively bad as they've been of late, they're still only four years removed from their most recent Final Four appearance.

Whether it's another Final Four appearance or an NCAA title, and regardless of Howland's status, I'd bet on UCLA returning to the top of the mountain before Indiana does. Only time will tell, but with the one-and-done nature of college hoops these days, I have to like UCLA's chances better than Indiana's of landing that key star or two that will put them over the hump.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

You can't be serious. I'll take that bet in a heartbeat. IU is primed to be really good NEXT year, and last I checked, they have the #1 recruiting class coming in. Top 5-ish, at the very least. UCLA is going to toil in mediocrity for a bit until they're "back," especially if they go through a coaching change.

Bottom line, neither program is going to be down for very long, but IU is clearly on the faster track to getting back at this point, unless something bizarre or unforeseen happens.

[Van]

Well, with UCLA's recruiting base and Pauley due back shortly I wouldn't really call it "unforeseen" if they should land a couple of monsters in the next year or two who put them squarely back in the hunt.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

No logical, informed or objective person would conclude that UCLA will get back "on top" faster than Indiana based on the current state of both programs. Period. Could it happen? Sure. Is it more likely? No.

Hell, out of the Pac 12, Arizona vs Indiana is the more intriguing debate, considering the embarrassment of riches the Wildcats have on the way.

[Screw_Michigan]

UCLA's recruiting base

What player worth a shit is going to want to play for an idiot like Ben Howland, who coddles assholes (who eventually don't produce) and lets cancers pervade his program. UCLAme isn't even close to licking IU's tant when it comes to where they rank.

[Van]

IU is now ten years removed from their last Final Four. You have to go back another ten years for their next most recent appearance. It's been twenty-five years since their last title.

UCLA sucks right now, but that won't last. Oh, and for all his detractors, Ben Howland has three FF appearances in the last six years. Go ahead and spin that anyway you want.

We'll see.

[smackaholic]

Mgooo, Yes, Indiana has shown promise in the past few years, but, till they put something new into the trophy case, nobody gives a fuck. Bottom line is, they ain't done shit in a quarter century or so. UCLA, on the other hand has done something, meaning actual titles, during that period.

So, in the "royalty" palace, you have UNC and Kentucky, maybe Kansas. Duke is nouveau royalty . Indiana and UCLA and there, but, their royalty dues are overdue. UConn is banging on the door pretty fukking hard. Too bad Calhoun doesn't have another 5 years in him. I think he could kick the door down. Hopefully his heir will do so.

[smackaholic]

Well, with UCLA's recruiting base and Pauley due back shortly I wouldn't really call it "unforeseen" if they should land a couple of monsters in the next year or two who put them squarely back in the hunt.

You put a little too much importance on the fukking barn they play in.

[Van]

No, I don't. If anything, I don't put enough importance on it.

Duke without Cameron isn't Duke. Kansas outside of Allen Fieldhouse, same deal. In college hoops, the homecourt advantage is everything.

UCLA is playing in the godforsaken L.A. Sports Arena, a shithole adjacent to the USC campus that's such a dump, christ, even USC hoops bailed on it a long time ago. In this era of one-and-done mercenaries, if you don't think playing there isn't a huge disadvantage for UCLA recruiting compared to a shiny new Pauley Pavilion with its 4,274 national championship banners hanging from the rafters, well, you're wrong.

Anyway, college hoops royalty? Based on a combination of titles and FF appearances, I'd rank them thusly...

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Indiana

Indiana (5) has more titles than Kansas (3) or Duke (4) but far fewer FF appearances (8 vs 14 and 15), which I think outweighs their edge in championships. Also, Indiana has done very little in the past twenty-five years.

Nonetheless, if someone wishes to prioritize their advantage in titles over Duke and Kansas, I'd be fine with that.

The Top Three are no-brainers.

[smackaholic]

No, I don't. If anything, I don't put enough importance on it.

Duke without Cameron isn't Duke. Kansas outside of Allen Fieldhouse, same deal. In college hoops, the homecourt advantage is everything.

UCLA is playing in the godforsaken L.A. Sports Arena, a shithole adjacent to the USC campus that's such a dump, christ, even USC hoops bailed on it a long time ago. In this era of one-and-done mercenaries, if you don't think playing there isn't a huge disadvantage for UCLA recruiting compared to a shiny new Pauley Pavilion with its 4,274 national championship banners hanging from the rafters, well, you're wrong.

Anyway, college hoops royalty? Based on a combination of titles and FF appearances, I'd rank them thusly...

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Indiana

Indiana (5) has more titles than Kansas (3) or Duke (4) but far fewer FF appearances (8 vs 14 and 15), which I think outweighs their edge in championships. Also, Indiana has done very little in the past twenty-five years.

Nonetheless, if someone wishes to prioritize their advantage in titles over Duke and Kansas, I'd be fine with that.

The Top Three are no-brainers.

I would have to drop UCLA out of the top spot with just one ring in the last 36 years. Yeah, the little run they had prior to that counts, but, it is getting to be pretty ancient.

I would have that list...

1. UNC
2. Kentucky
3. Kansas
4. UCLA
5. Duke
6. Indiana

I put the 'heels in the top spot because their success has been pretty consistent over a long number of years with plenty of recent success.

[Van]

How can you put Kansas over UCLA? They only have three titles to UCLA's eleven, and UCLA even has more recent FF appearances. On top of that, Kansas went twenty years between titles. Since the '90s, UCLA and Kansas each have the same number of titles: just one apiece.

Seriously, c'mon. Three national titles and eight FF appearances vs eleven and eighteen, including debatably equal recent success? There's simply no way to build a credible "royalty" argument for Kansas over UCLA.

[smackaholic]

Because Kansas is still playing, I guess. switch them around, if you'd like.

While they both have one in 20 years, KU has 2 in 24 years, while you have to go back nearly 40 years to get to UCLA'a previous win. Also, it seems that KU is usually in the hunt. UCLA, not so much. And this is a must for BBall royalty, IMO.

[Van]

UCLA has been in the hunt more often in recent years than Kansas.

Doesn't matter anyway. If all you're going by is right the fuck now, then why not slap Butler up there ahead of both of them? We're talking blueblood royalty here, not what have you done for me lately? In terms of college hoops' Mt. Rushmore UCLA is absolutely there, along with Kentucky, North Carolina and...?

I say Duke since their four titles and fifteen FF appearances trump the three and eight by Kansas, plus Duke has been the far more consistent winner over the past quarter century.

[Screw_Michigan]

Butler is more relevant than UCLA.

[Van]

Your trolling utter lack of perspective is charming.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

We're talking blueblood royalty here, not what have you done for me lately

Good to see you've finally come to terms with the fact that there's a difference between "the here and now" and the entire history of a basketball program. Or the last 20 seasons. Or the last 25 years. Or "insert the timeframe that adds the most value to your take here."

Flipping tard.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Mgooo, Yes, Indiana has shown promise in the past few years, but, till they put something new into the trophy case, nobody gives a fuck. Bottom line is, they ain't done shit in a quarter century or so. UCLA, on the other hand has done something, meaning actual titles, during that period.

So what? Try to focus. The argument here is which program is going to get back on top faster. For the sake of discussion we'll define "on top" as getting back to the Final Four. No sensible person is going to argue that UCLA is on a faster track. Indiana got to the Sweet 16 this year. They have top recruiting classes coming in right now. Furthermore, they finally have a coach who appears will be there for the long haul, so you've also got a foundation and stability in place. UCLA? Who the fuck knows what's going to happen with Howland? You could easily see a coaching change there soon, and then all the setbacks that often come with that.

The argument, by comparison, that UCLA has a better chance of getting back on top because they "might land a monster or two" and because they're doing some maintenance to their facility is completely laughable.

Could they? Yes. Is it more likely? No.

Good christ, just STFU, morons.

[Goober McTuber]

^^^^^
What he said.

[smackaholic]

UCLA has been in the hunt more often in recent years than Kansas.

Doesn't matter anyway. If all you're going by is right the fuck now, then why not slap Butler up there ahead of both of them? We're talking blueblood royalty here, not what have you done for me lately? In terms of college hoops' Mt. Rushmore UCLA is absolutely there, along with Kentucky, North Carolina and...?

I say Duke since their four titles and fifteen FF appearances trump the three and eight by Kansas, plus Duke has been the far more consistent winner over the past quarter century.

Kansas has a ring in the past 5 years and is knocking at the door of another, so,I give them the nod over a team that has a few close but no cigars recently and a ring that is getting close to 20 years old.

I agree with you about duke. 4/15 is hard to argue with.

[Van]

We're talking blueblood royalty here, not what have you done for me lately

Good to see you've finally come to terms with the fact that there's a difference between "the here and now" and the entire history of a basketball program. Or the last 20 seasons. Or the last 25 years. Or "insert the timeframe that adds the most value to your take here."

And UCLA is the only team with three FF appearances in the last six years, so eat a dick. Better yet, stick to that "UConn is better than Duke!" argument. That went so well for you.

Christ, you people are fucking stupid. Do you really think a program like UCLA's will stay down for long? There's a reason UCLA can simply flip a switch and go to three straight FFs even when they were mired in relative doldrums, while an Indiana struggles to make one FF per decade.

"Ooh, but Indiana made the Sweet 16! They're on their way, baby!"

Really? Really?

You mean they managed to beat #13 seed New Mexico St before eeking out a two-point win over #12 seed VCU? They won two tournament games against absolute nobodies, and you idiots see that as significant?

Swear to god, you children have all the depth of a group of Tiger Beat cunts arguing who is the all-time bestest band, Built to Spill, Belle and Sebastian or, ummm, fine, okay, whatshisface...The Beatles?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

And UCLA is the only team with three FF appearances in the last six years, so eat a dick.

I am not sure what that that has to do with our UConn vs Duke discussion, but you can get back to me on that.

Better yet, stick to that "UConn is better than Duke!" argument. That went so well for you.

If there has been a more successful (see also, winning National Titles) program in the country since 1999, can you point them out to me? That includes Duke, btw. TIA.

[smackaholic]

We're talking blueblood royalty here, not what have you done for me lately

Good to see you've finally come to terms with the fact that there's a difference between "the here and now" and the entire history of a basketball program. Or the last 20 seasons. Or the last 25 years. Or "insert the timeframe that adds the most value to your take here."

And UCLA is the only team with three FF appearances in the last six years, so eat a dick. Better yet, stick to that "UConn is better than Duke!" argument. That went so well for you.

Christ, you people are fucking stupid. Do you really think a program like UCLA's will stay down for long? There's a reason UCLA can simply flip a switch and go to three straight FFs even when they were mired in relative doldrums, while an Indiana struggles to make one FF per decade.

"Ooh, but Indiana made the Sweet 16! They're on their way, baby!"

Really? Really?

You mean they managed to beat #13 seed New Mexico St before eeking out a two-point win over #12 seed VCU? They won two tournament games against absolute nobodies, and you idiots see that as significant?

Swear to god, you children have all the depth of a group of Tiger Beat cunts arguing who is the all-time bestest band, Built to Spill, Belle and Sebastian or, ummm, fine, okay, whatshisface...The Beatles?

You are right in that a few sweet sixteens mean nothing. Final fours certainly mean more, but, some jewelry speaks louder yet.

A decent team can make it into a FF with a few breaks. But, you really do have to be a bit better than decent to cut down the nets at the end of the dance. And while UCLA's doing so every fukking year, save one for a 12 year stretch, will never ever be approached again, for a number of reasons, it is getting to be ancient history.

The bottom line is, 1 ring in 36 or 37 years.

That ain't royalty numbers.

[smackaholic]

And UCLA is the only team with three FF appearances in the last six years, so eat a dick.

I am not sure what that that has to do with our UConn vs Duke discussion, but you can get back to me on that.

Better yet, stick to that "UConn is better than Duke!" argument. That went so well for you.

If there has been a more successful (see also, winning National Titles) program in the country since 1999, can you point them out to me? That includes Duke, btw. TIA.

He can make the argument, if consistency is the prime measuring stick. Duke's ability to make the FF just about every fukking year is admirable, but......I'll take the 3 rings knowing that a few off years might mean chasing an NIT title, which, UConn, should have been after this year.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Duke's ability to make the FF just about every fukking year is admirable.

If by every year, you mean 4 times since 1999 (or as many times as UConn during that span), I see what you are saying. :?

[Van]

And again, UCLA is the only team to make it three times in the last six years.

We can go as arbitrary as you like with these self-serving timeframes...or we can just take the program as a whole and check the scoreboard, knowing that the here-and-now is merely that. It's transient. "Royalty" refers to a permanent legacy, a benchmark that set the standard to which all others aspire.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

"Royalty" refers to a permanent legacy, a benchmark that set the standard to which all others aspire.

Show me where I ever used that term. We have more titles since 1999 than any school in the country. Including Duke. We, currently, are one of the elite basketball programs in the country.

[Van]

Yes, you are currently one of the elite programs in the country. You're no Duke, though.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Christ, you people are fucking stupid. Do you really think a program like UCLA's will stay down for long?

I guess this wasn't clear enough for you?

Bottom line, neither program is going to be down for very long

There's a reason UCLA can simply flip a switch and go to three straight FFs even when they were mired in relative doldrums, while an Indiana struggles to make one FF per decade.

"Ooh, but Indiana made the Sweet 16! They're on their way, baby!"

Really? Really?

You mean they managed to beat #13 seed New Mexico St before eeking out a two-point win over #12 seed VCU? They won two tournament games against absolute nobodies, and you idiots see that as significant?

This year's success projecting to next year, combined with the top recruiting class in the nation, combined with a good coach who is there to stay...yep, that's a lot more significant than anything UCLA has going for them at the moment. Remember, the only thing I ever took exception to was this:

Whether it's another Final Four appearance or an NCAA title, and regardless of Howland's status, I'd bet on UCLA returning to the top of the mountain before Indiana does.

...and this is a stupid fucking statement, based on the state of both programs RIGHT NOW. I merely said IU is on a faster track, and that is absolutely true. Period. There is no getting around this. There is not a single intelligent basketball person, writer or analyst that would agree with you, and a Final Four from six years ago doesn't mean the slightest bit of fuck to this discussion.